|
Post by Hey Man on Oct 2, 2011 21:56:45 GMT -5
Roger Daltrey, lead singer of the Who, says there aren't many contemporary singers who could "lead" a band, and he partially blames shows like "American Idol" for it.
"A lot of the new people they choose on shows like 'American Idol' and things like that — I don't ever hear lead singers," he said. "They always seem to choose to pick people that are great singers, fabulous singers, but they've never got the voice that makes a great lead singer."
Daltrey, 67, went on to name some of music's best singers: "You hear 10 seconds of Rod Stewart, you know it's Rod Stewart. Ten seconds of Mick Jagger, that's Mick Jagger. Ten seconds of Eddie Vedder, you know that's Eddie."
England-born Daltrey says there is one exception in today's music scene: Adele.
"I mean, I love Adele. That's a lead singer; that's the real deal," he said of the British soul singer, whose sophomore album, "21," is the year's top-selling album in the United States and the United Kingdom.
So, would Daltrey join the panel of a singing show to fix what he believes is wrong?
"I'd probably throw them all out," he said, laughing.
|
|
|
Post by R&ROVER on Oct 3, 2011 6:38:35 GMT -5
He needs to watch the Foo Fighters and re-evaluate....
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Oct 3, 2011 7:01:52 GMT -5
He needs to watch the Foo Fighters and re-evaluate.... The Foo Fighters may be a great band, but Grohl isn't known for having killer pipes or anything like that as a lead singer. He is not instantly recognizable, which is what I think Daltry is referring to.
|
|
|
Post by R&ROVER on Oct 3, 2011 7:18:36 GMT -5
Ironic that Daltry judges vocal ability from where he sits now. That applies to many, but I can hardly think of a more diminished vocalist in a live setting.
Personally I really enjoy Grohl's power and ability to sing soft as well. He's got a ton of personality and onstage charisma. I think he's a perfect candidate. Maybe his biggest drawback is that he has a guitar strapped to him all the time, so not the traditional mic-swinging front man. That I'd concede.
A big thing working against this is that bands aren't big either right now. Rock isn't at the forefront and most of the pop world is dominated by single artists and not bands. You can't be Adele and be the "lead singer," which implies a group setting. I disagree with him here and how he defines this. It may be semantics, but I don't look at it the same way.
|
|
|
Post by DWF on Oct 3, 2011 11:56:39 GMT -5
It's all changed. The days of frontmen and even guitar heros has passed in favor of everyday generic garage band members.
|
|
|
Post by R&ROVER on Oct 3, 2011 21:07:16 GMT -5
I love how for some music life ended entirely sometime in the 80s, regardless of the topic. It's a sign of your age.
|
|
|
Post by DWF on Oct 3, 2011 21:19:34 GMT -5
Where do you get that conclusion from anything that has been said in this thread?
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Oct 3, 2011 21:19:50 GMT -5
I love how for some music life ended entirely sometime in the 80s, regardless of the topic. It's a sign of your age. OK Blackwell. It hasn't died for me at all, but sorry there are no Robert Plant's or Rod Stewart's today. There are just every day singers fronting bands.
|
|
|
Post by R&ROVER on Oct 3, 2011 21:23:25 GMT -5
Where do you get that conclusion from anything that has been said in this thread? Because I'm not referring to just this thread.
|
|
|
Post by R&ROVER on Oct 3, 2011 21:24:45 GMT -5
I love how for some music life ended entirely sometime in the 80s, regardless of the topic. It's a sign of your age. OK Blackwell. It hasn't died for me at all, but sorry there are no Robert Plant's or Rod Stewart's today. There are just every day singers fronting bands. That's entirely unfair. I didn't once endorse the likes of Katy Perry or Britney Spears. Low. I also wasn't referring to you either, incidentally.
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Oct 3, 2011 21:28:04 GMT -5
OK Blackwell. It hasn't died for me at all, but sorry there are no Robert Plant's or Rod Stewart's today. There are just every day singers fronting bands. That's entirely unfair. I didn't once endorse the likes of Katy Perry or Britney Spears. Low. I also wasn't referring to you either, incidentally. I meant Blackwell in the nicest way possible.
|
|
|
Post by R&ROVER on Oct 3, 2011 21:30:59 GMT -5
This thread isn't going exactly the way I was hoping for it to go, so I think I'll have this board shut down and go study Gregorian chanting instead.
|
|
|
Post by DWF on Oct 3, 2011 21:32:15 GMT -5
OK Blackwell. It hasn't died for me at all, but sorry there are no Robert Plant's or Rod Stewart's today. There are just every day singers fronting bands. My point entirely. The emphasis in the 60's, 70's, and the bulk of the 80's was based on star caliber players who were larger than life. The tide clearly turned with the commercial 'garage band' emphasis over the years with the likes of Nirvana, Weezer, on through to the likes of The All American Rejects, Kings Of Leon etc. Younger fans don't care as much about the musicianship, live show, and persona. It's about being the band next door in look, sound, and ability. You can figure that out and trace it's origin no matter how fuckin' old you are.
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Oct 3, 2011 21:33:08 GMT -5
This thread isn't going exactly the way I was hoping for it to go, so I think I'll have this board shut down and go study Gregorian chanting instead. Fucking hilarious. ;D
|
|
|
Post by R&ROVER on Oct 3, 2011 21:36:38 GMT -5
I'm sure rock fans and musicians in the 60s would've argued a lot of the validity of the music in the 80s. I've said it before, it's a generational reflection that simply hasn't changed. No bit of rationalizing changes that. It's out of your hands and it's not as convenient as "today's fans just don't...."
I'm quite sure most of the fans of older rock and roll looked at the hair metal era, for instance, which many of us enjoy still, and thought the rock world had gone and lost its fucking mind and its good sense of taste.
Next generation bad. Older generations good. Welcome to every generation's rationalization since the beginning of popular music.
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Oct 3, 2011 21:44:17 GMT -5
I'm sure rock fans and musicians in the 60s would've argued a lot of the validity of the music in the 80s. I've said it before, it's a generational reflection that simply hasn't changed. No bit of rationalizing changes that. It's out of your hands and it's not as convenient as "today's fans just don't...." I'm quite sure most of the fans of older rock and roll looked at the hair metal era, for instance, which many of us enjoy still, and thought the rock world had gone and lost its fucking mind and its good sense of taste. Next generation bad. Older generation good. Welcome to every generation's rationalization since the beginning of popular music. So who is the Roger Daltrey, Robert Plant, Rod Stewart, David Lee Roth, etc. today? Who is truly a rock star today?
|
|
|
Post by DWF on Oct 3, 2011 21:49:42 GMT -5
I'm sure rock fans and musicians in the 60s would've argued a lot of the validity of the music in the 80s. I've said it before, it's a generational reflection that simply hasn't changed. No bit of rationalizing changes that. It's out of your hands and it's not as convenient as "today's fans just don't...." I'm quite sure most of the fans of older rock and roll looked at the hair metal era, for instance, which many of us enjoy still, and thought the rock world had gone and lost its fucking mind and its good sense of taste. Next generation bad. Older generations good. Welcome to every generation's rationalization since the beginning of popular music. Great - you're rationalizing generational gaps in music. Meanwhile we're discussing the end of guitar heros, traditional frontmen, etc. Emphasis has changed in media, promotion, and with fans no matter how you slice it. Color me naive and unaware of the industry I've worked in for years, but I'd sure love to see who is the latest celebrated guitarist peppered on the cover of a dozen magazines. Are there still a new cluster of Claptons, Becks, and Pages out there I don't see or hear about ? My point is acknowledging a long shifting trend in what has occurred in the musical landscape. Not what I prefer or do not prefer due to the age on my driver's license. lol
|
|
|
Post by DWF on Oct 3, 2011 21:55:32 GMT -5
Where do you get that conclusion from anything that has been said in this thread? Because I'm not referring to just this thread. You'd have been better off if you did. Keep that up and every thread will lead back to WHITESNAKE.
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Oct 3, 2011 21:59:11 GMT -5
Because I'm not referring to just this thread. You'd have been better off if you did. Keep that up and every thread will lead back to WHITESNAKE. Love Whitensnake - they rule.
|
|
|
Post by DWF on Oct 3, 2011 22:06:17 GMT -5
Love Whitensnake - they rule. Is that the German version of Coverdales band ?
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Oct 3, 2011 22:18:19 GMT -5
Love Whitensnake - they rule. Is that the German version of Coverdales band ? Yes. They rawk so much harder. Noch Der Nacht is awesome as is Langsam und Leicht
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Oct 3, 2011 22:47:02 GMT -5
Love Whitensnake - they rule. I like Stynx better. ;D Man, it would just make my world if Whitensanke and Stynx toured together.
|
|
|
Post by R&ROVER on Oct 4, 2011 6:54:19 GMT -5
I'm sure rock fans and musicians in the 60s would've argued a lot of the validity of the music in the 80s. I've said it before, it's a generational reflection that simply hasn't changed. No bit of rationalizing changes that. It's out of your hands and it's not as convenient as "today's fans just don't...." I'm quite sure most of the fans of older rock and roll looked at the hair metal era, for instance, which many of us enjoy still, and thought the rock world had gone and lost its fucking mind and its good sense of taste. Next generation bad. Older generation good. Welcome to every generation's rationalization since the beginning of popular music. So who is the Roger Daltrey, Robert Plant, Rod Stewart, David Lee Roth, etc. today? Who is truly a rock star today? It's true there aren't many, but rock isn't exactly experiencing a popularity pinnancle in the spotlight now either, is it? I think we're in a phase, a shift, not a permanent mindset, and that's also coinciding with a complete industry wide shift as well. There weren't too many when grunge came to the forefront either. You could argue an Axl, but while he was an engaging front man, like some of the arguments made here he was hardly a vocal genius and he was just as likely to end the night with a tantrum than lead a band. Cobain was neither really vocally virtuosic or very engaging on stage in a traditional front man role. Again, I think that Grohl has taken that over just fine, beginning in the mid-90s and continuing on today. Bono does much of the same and has for a long time now. It's never going to be the same kind of thing. The closest we've had to that sexy front man step up and command a stage is the fuckin' dude from The Darkness and that was pretty much just all ridiculous parody in my mind....looking and acting intentionally like a bygone era. Maybe it's OK if there's never a Robert Plant again. Why does there have to be? Why lament it rather than just recognize a change? Clearly many of us prefer that style of leader on stage, both in terms of personality and vocals (a Hagar type) or personality and charisma (a Roth type -- not to get RVL going on this particular debate)...and you don't see that much now, but so what? I also argue Daltry's original observation about Eddie Vedder being in the same class as Stewart or Jagger. If so, please keep Grohl and Bono and the likes of which I've mentioned firmly in place please....without ridicule. Grohl is about 10 times the stage leader as Vedder. At the same time Daltry sort of contradicts himself by naming someone like Adele as being a great lead singer. If that's so, there's Alicia Keys, Tori Amos and tons of other powerful female vocalists who OWN every nuance of their stage every bit as much as Adele. Fucking Amy Winehouse, bat shit crazy as she was, had a great voice...and was pretty much another fucked up Jim Morrison. Celine Dion commands her stage, has an enormous voice (as good as anyone replicating her studio performances live, it's very true), and you know it's her from note one. That seems to fit Daltry's description pretty nicely. It's hard for me to make a strong argument by naming contemporary names because I'm like I described, myself pretty clueless to the "vibrant" 22 year olds out there...and thus my references to the likes of the older Keys, Amos, and Dion (all 90s and beyond, I might add)...but then again I don't spend much time looking either. As for guitarists, I have to plead the same ignorance due to complete lack of exposure, although I know the likes of Jack White have turned some heads in the industry. You can dismiss him and them if you want (I don't listen to them myself), but I'm aware that he's reasonably admired for his playing and approach to music just the same. That's a different thing than simply not enjoying them. Is there an EVH out there? Maybe, but I don't know who that is. But EVH is one of two of those types, he and Hendrix...and the world has only seen their impact EXACTLY TWICE in history of rock in my opinion...(some will argue Zappa, Vai, Malsteen [shudder]), etc. Who knows if we'll see one again, but they don't come along often. Maybe we've mined that instrument for the time being. What's left to reasonably explore? Who was the next great blues guitarist like Clapton? Vaughn for sure...but he's dead now. Who are the blues guys today? Not too sure, but I have a fondness for Henry Garza, whose brand of Mexi-pop isn't exactly lighting the world on fire at that moment, but that doesn't make him less important or impacting either. I think they're out there, but the landscape sure has changed. I'm not hearing it on my radio, but I'll bet if I dialed up contemporary blues on Pandora I'd find out....
|
|